Run it on your own schedule
The guided sample shows a generated project. This is the same engine, run on yours.
Send one schedule export. You get back the complete deliverable — the conformance findings with their activity IDs and clause references, the assumptions the run made, the clauses it refused to decide, and the ranked list of what evidence would settle them. In HTML, Markdown and JSON.
No account. No charge. No obligation, and no sales sequence attached to it.
Before you send anything
For a project in dispute, or where a dispute is anticipated, route any proposed file sharing through your counsel of record. A completed project can still have a live claim. If you are not sure, treat it as in dispute.
If sharing is appropriate, send a derivative you have sanitised — renamed activities, removed cost and resource loading, whatever your organization requires. The engine reads logic, dates and calendars; it does not need your cost data to answer the questions above.
If none of that is workable, the worked example is a complete report and needs no file from you at all.
What to send
| Send | Notes |
|---|---|
| One schedule export | Primavera XER, Primavera XML, Microsoft Project XML (MSPDI) or USACE SDEF. The format is read from the file's contents, not its extension. Binary .mpp is not supported — export to XML from Project first. |
| The governing specification, if you want it checked | Name it, or attach it. Without one, the run reports what the file contains and checks the general clauses. |
| The contract terms that bear on the clauses | Optional, and the single biggest lever on how much the run can decide. Without them, more clauses come back unevaluated by design rather than guessed. |
A baseline and an update, rather than one file, lets the comparison run as well.
What comes back
- The conformance review. Findings tied to the clause and the activity, with the evidence behind each one.
- The clauses it would not score. Missing evidence never becomes a pass. A check lacking a required input reports "not evaluated" and names what it needs.
- The clauses it referred to a person. Anything registered as professional judgment is identified rather than filled in silently.
- The worklist. The unanswered clauses grouped into a ranked set of things to go and request.
- A reproducibility record, so a later reviewer — or the other side — can retrace the computation.
Expect it the same day or the next working day.
What this is not
Every document produced this way is demonstration output from an unreleased research project. It is a computation, not an approval, an expert opinion or a determination of entitlement. The reviewing authority makes the determination.
Computed dates and floats must be reconciled against the source scheduling application before any reliance is placed on them. Do not attach the output to a submittal, a claim or a dispute. What it cannot do is the honest version of this and is worth reading first.
Then what
If the output is useful, the conversation is about your own environment: which specifications govern your work, which formats your reviewers receive, and what a deployment inside your organization would need to satisfy. Enterprise access and deployment explains the route, and a walkthrough needs no file at all.
If it is not useful, that is a worthwhile conclusion and it cost you one export.
Source: web/pages/try.md. Source commit date: 2026-09-11.